[NetBehaviour] About Networked Painting
curt at lab404.com
Thu Mar 18 18:02:53 CET 2010
My question still stands regarding what is gained and what is lost by
using the term "painting" to describe this work. [As Alan points out,
the terms "gain" and "loss" are problematic/subjective (as all terms
are), but that doesn't mean they are pragmatically useless or
critically irrelevant, particularly when posed to you as a practicing
artist.] In your description of the work below, you use the word
"picture" rather than painting. I think you are right to use the word
picture rather than painting -- these "pictures" seem better
understood as digital photographs (modified algorithmically according
to network input). So what is gained and what is lost by calling them
"networked paintings" as opposed to something like "networked
Just by way of comparison, here is a great project of what might be
termed "generative drawing":
artist statement here:
create your own "drawings" here:
curate and sell your own drawings (and the drawings of others) here:
Regarding the above work, technically...
There is an amount of source material created by the "artist" (a
database of scanned analog doodles).
There is a generative environment with parameters established by the "artist."
The "user" is allowed to input certain variables into that environment.
The result is a "collaborative" piece of work which is purposefully
situated within an online "economy."
The project above is fruitfully approached from a critical
perspective as "drawing," but the artist also draws attention (by the
term "larding") to Oulipo poetry and (by the title "time().mt_rand"),
to computer time-stamping procedures. To me, the para-art language
that the artist uses to contextualize this piece of work foregrounds
salient, relevant aspects of the work, both in terms of the "art
history" of drawing and the contemporary new media "theory" of
computational, networked, interactive art (not to mention issues of
curation, web 2.0 rebloggability as a form of curation, salability of
the art object, online economies, "originality" of the artist,
"uniqueness" of the art object). In other words, the language that
the artist uses to talk about the work is very much aware of what the
work itself is doing in the world (on+off-line). More is gained than
is lost by this kind of para-art language.
My critique is not of your work. Your project itself interestingly
foregrounds the "unique/original" reception of a "single" piece of
work, by encoding elements of that unique reception into the
"singular" piece of work itself. It is very much related to
Benjamin's observations regarding the difference between viewing a
unique/original auratic object (be it a panting or a stationary
sculpture) and viewing a mechanically reproduced object (be it a
print, an analog photograph, a movie, a video, a digital photograph).
My hesitance is with your use of the word "painting" in the language
of your artist statment. Given the work you are describing, that word
"painting" seems too underdetermined and vague. It stakes too broad a
claim. It opens up all sorts of tangential cans of worms (flatness,
brushstroke, materials, abstraction vs. figuration, "subjectivity" of
the artists eye vs. "objectivity" of the camera lens, etc.) that the
work itself is not (yet) opening up. Undoubtedly "painting" is useful
in other contexts to desecribe other pieces of new media work (some
of Mark Napier's work comes to mind as very "painterly" in terms of
his treatment of code and in terms of the texture of his resultant
visuals). But "painting" as applied to this work seems to lose more
than it gains.
>(well, i try another reply strategy in order to allow this post to go
>through the list, let's test...)
>In reply to Curt Cloninger :
>Yes, that's for me a very important point to address. In several works
>(1) i use the IP address of the spectator to compose the picture, so the
>picture is unique according to this spectator. The picture takes place
>only where the spectator is looking at it. From this point of view
>(reception, uniqueness of the picture), it seems that it has more
>to do with painting than with photography or algorithmic generative art.
>This is conceptually ok if i don't save generated pictures and show them
>to others. It's a another possibility, but it changes the relation
>between the spectator and the picture, and as a consequence, the nature
>of the picture. 'Networked painting' is a way to explore this
>relational/interaction space between users/spectators and pictures.
>NetBehaviour mailing list
>NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
More information about the NetBehaviour